Sure, but pick another product in the Mac lineup that has such low volumes that the ENTIRE production can be done in the US.

It isn't the iMac unless Apple expects iMac sales to crater.

I don't think that's relevant. Why start with the most complex product? If they're going to do this, they should begin with something simpler. They don't have to do all the production here either. Not in the beginning.

It's pretty obvious that Apple regards this as a test. While they apparently intend to work on it, they are starting off small.

We also don't know what the new Mac Pros will look like. Will it be smaller/larger? Less integrated? Will it even be made out of aluminum? Nothing is simple, simple...of course not. Were also talking about a machine that doesn't have all of these little parts and pieces that an iMac, MBP, MBA, or mobile device does. From an assembly stand point I would think its a hell of a lot easier to assemble a Mac Pro than it is an iMac, or portable computer. I'm not saying its easy as pie and anyone could do it, but it appears to be easier, no?

Well, I don't know. The Mac Pro has lots of small parts. An iMac is a pretty simple product. It's a shell with parts inside. We don't know what the new Mac Pro will be, though I hope it will be a step up from my 2009 model. But for this purpose we have to assume it will still be a high end, upgradable machine. If so, it's going to be complex, with a lot of parts. I would think that Apple would prefer starting simple, with less labor involved.

None of us actually know anything. Maybe tonight we will get more of a hint from his 10pm eastern time NBC interview.

Don't sweat it. Just another person that doesn't recognize great design that makes it "appear to be easy" and that anybody could do it.
Myself: when I bought my first MP back in '05 and opened it... it really did take my breath away. Like opening the hood to a Porsche, BMW, Audi, etc. No other case on the planet at the time was so perfectly fitted from the inside and out. Coming from BYO Win-boxes with the best parts and cases available made it doubly fascinating.

Yeah. Apple makes complex products look simple. Actually, the inside of the Mac Pro is very sophisticated. There are no wires except for the cable to the upper optical bay. Extremely clean, extremely low RF emissions. Everything just plugs in, including most of the fans.

This is entirely true. The only way this will work out is if Apple has monopoly control over the device and market. This also suggest why it is likely that the Mac being produce will be a low volume unit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lkrupp

"Congratulations to Apple for doing this, the public will appreciate it."

Pure baloney. The public will ignore American made Macs if they are even five dollars more than the foreign made Macs. This pie-in-the-sky, feel good, made-in-America crap is shear political pablum. The theory has been discredited over and over again in the clothing and electronics world.

The only people who will appreciate it are the activists and talking head pundits. This is a political move by Apple only.

Don't sweat it. Just another person that doesn't recognize great design that makes it "appear to be easy" and that anybody could do it.
Myself: when I bought my first MP back in '05 and opened it... it really did take my breath away. Like opening the hood to a Porsche, BMW, Audi, etc. No other case on the planet at the time was so perfectly fitted from the inside and out. Coming from BYO Win-boxes with the best parts and cases available made it doubly fascinating.

BYO boxes aren't very tidy by their nature. They're designed to be flexible, as they need to sell enough to profit on rather thin margins. The market for cases isn't that big anymore, and people tend to pride themselves on the use of cheap cases. With these the required flexibility is much lower, and they're taking the margins of an entire machine.

They want a box with a consumer chip that you can open and take out every single component and replace yourself. Nothing really to do with being built in the US.

So if I correctly understand what you're saying, the XMac would be like the traditional DIY beige-box Wintel things we all built (or at least customized) in the '90's?

Is there some reason for proponents of this to believe Apple has an interest in actually building such a thing or is it just wishful thinking?

That isn't what the XMac is about at all. The goal is a midrange performance machine at a reasonable price. Desktop CPUs are the only way to get there at the moment. At this date the machine needs to support a decent GPU too.

As for believing if Apple will do such a machine it is probably wishful thinking at this point as it appears that they have abandoned the headless desktop market. They certainly don't take it seriously. Frankly if they could take the Mac Pro and redesign a base model that had a reasonable starting point price wise, people might accept that in place of an XMac.

Originally Posted by wizard69
That isn't what the XMac is about at all. The goal is a midrange performance machine at a reasonable price.

That's called the iMac. I don't get it. I have described the xMac exactly as people have desired it: with all parts upgradable and no monitor.

As for believing if Apple will do such a machine it is probably wishful thinking at this point as it appears that they have abandoned the headless desktop market. They certainly don't take it seriously.

Yeah, and… them abandoning it in 1996 (cum 2004) wasn't proof enough that they don't care?

Well, I don't know. The Mac Pro has lots of small parts. An iMac is a pretty simple product. It's a shell with parts inside. We don't know what the new Mac Pro will be, though I hope it will be a step up from my 2009 model. But for this purpose we have to assume it will still be a high end, upgradable machine. If so, it's going to be complex, with a lot of parts. I would think that Apple would prefer starting simple, with less labor involved.
None of us actually know anything. Maybe tonight we will get more of a hint from his 10pm eastern time NBC interview.

I'm not sure what exactly is small in the current Mac Pro. Its a logicboard, hard drive, power supply, SuperDrive, RAM, some hard disk bay covers, graphics card, etc. There isn't lots of tiny screws with different lengths, heads, sizes, etc that a portable or iMac has. I can't see the iMac requiring LESS labor than the Mac Pro. There really isn't much to a Mac Pro as great and beautiful as it is. And yes, I've owned a Mac Pro before and have been inside it many times.

Seriously, I think all Macs are special and seem difficult to assemble. There are many stories on why the US doesn't have complete CE assembly lines in the US. Most say Americans aren't skilled enough. Even though all Americans I know are very skillful I don't see any Americans working in a factory like the ones Foxxcon has. It seems tedious work. We can have a great palaver on this, or simply wait for the job interviews to start. Can't imagine Apple is going to hire with the aid of headhunters and keep everything hush hush. But it'll probably all be outsourced anyway and the first thing to see will be the sticker on the back of a Mac:

Designed by Apple in California. Manufactured in The United States of America. Copied in South Korea.

As for the actual headline of this current article: AAPL down 2.56 % overnight - the stock market seems to just "love" stories like "made in the USA". In similar vein, I've noticed here in Oz that when employment figures go up, more often than not the ASX goes down. Causal connection or coincidence? Hmmm...Edited by AlexN - 12/7/12 at 4:12pm

I can't ever remember people saying they want all parts upgradable in the XMac. We Do want a decent GPU but even that can be soldered onto the motherboard. The upgradability comes from PCI Express slots where the feature of ones hearts desire can be placed. That might be a high performance GPU card or something totally different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

That isn't what the XMac is about at all. The goal is a midrange performance machine at a reasonable price.

That's called the iMac. I don't get it. I have described the xMac exactly as people have desired it: with all parts upgradable and no monitor.

Quote:

As for believing if Apple will do such a machine it is probably wishful thinking at this point as it appears that they have abandoned the headless desktop market. They certainly don't take it seriously.

Yeah, and… them abandoning it in 1996 (cum 2004) wasn't proof enough that they don't care?

The current Mac Mini is a regression in some regards and we have yet to see any compelling evidence that the new Mac Pro will be a design that actually moves product. Considering that both the Mini and the Pro have seen significant drops in sales and have yet to receive compelling upgrades I don't see any problem with the idea that Apple has abandoned the headless desktop market.

The upgradability comes from PCI Express slots where the feature of ones hearts desire can be placed.

Okay, well, welcome to Thunderbolt, then.

I think you're right. Even though I like to have all peripherals inside the box, it just isn't possible. There will always be The Next Thing and it might just be an external box as opposed to a PCI card. So yes, TB is indeed the way to go, some people won't like it because of CableClutter, but it somehow seems inevitable. I don't see a apple creating the MarvinMockup (in that other thread) but they could very well get rid of PCI & HDD slots.

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, let's say I want to upgrade the graphics capability of a Thunderbolt Mac. What choices are available to me? Now compare that to a machine with PCI slots.

Another example is storage. What is the cost to add another 2TB of storage via TB vs. just dropping a bigger drive into an existing internal drive bay?

Thunderbolt obviously *is* a "viable" alternative to the traditional personal computer design paradigm, but it is not necessarily as practical, convenient, tidy or cost-effective.

I'm also concerned about the glacially slow rate of adoption, making me worry that it may wind up being another Firewire only worse -- limited product choices and higher prices for those that offer it.

The upgradability comes from PCI Express slots where the feature of ones hearts desire can be placed.

Okay, well, welcome to Thunderbolt, then.

TB can't do for you what PCI Express can. This one point people seem to mis. By the way that in no way implies anything negative with respect to TB just that it is performance limited. Beyond that there is a real good question of low volume vendors ever adopting TB in place of PCI Express cards. The reality is PCai Express is widely supported and TB isn't.

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, let's say I want to upgrade the graphics capability of a Thunderbolt Mac. What choices are available to me? Now compare that to a machine with PCI slots.

Not only that let's say you need to run such a card on a different operating system, one that doesn't support TB. If your only option is a TB port you are out of luck.

Quote:

Another example is storage. What is the cost to add another 2TB of storage via TB vs. just dropping a bigger drive into an existing internal drive bay?

Here is where we disagree some. Disk Arrays can be done easily externally these days. Single disk installation is a different argument but at some point if. You have multiple volumes of data on discrete disks it is about time to consider an external array.

Quote:

Thunderbolt obviously *is* a "viable" alternative to the traditional personal computer design paradigm, but it is not necessarily as practical, convenient, tidy or cost-effective.

I'd argue against the idea that TB is a viable alternative in the large. It certainly is in certain cases however it can often be seen as the wrong choice.

Quote:

I'm also concerned about the glacially slow rate of adoption, making me worry that it may wind up being another Firewire only worse -- limited product choices and higher prices for those that offer it.

Honestly I think Apple got exactly what it was looking for with TB. To Apple it is simply a docking port for mobile hardware. That is it is a high speed solution for docking AIRs and Mac Book Pros.

To Apple it is simply a docking port for mobile hardware. That is it is a high speed solution for docking AIRs and Mac Book Pros.

That's what I figured. Intel may see it as more. Apple originally had a mini displayport connection in that spot on their notebooks. This just allowed them to build extra functionality into it. If thunderbolt gained prevalence in workstations too, I could see manufacturers coming out with breakout boxes if the volume is there to enable the use of various cards across form factors. I still see it as unlikely in the near future. Apple specifically relied on embedded graphics for the design here. Those cap out at the E3 level, at which point you're still limited to 20 total lanes. I keep seeing people reference external PCI boxes, yet they don't mention that most PCI cards aren't hot pluggable outside of some of those designed for servers.

OS X and Windows both support it, and Linux either has or is getting it, depending on the flavor.

That's not entirely true. Very little is actually certified under Windows. The thunderbolt display isn't certified on current Macs under Bootcamp or on Windows computers with thunderbolt ports. Then there is the issue of external pci devices that you and someone else on here like to bring up frequently. Most PCI devices are not hot pluggable, unless you get into ones designed for enterprise use assuming you don't have VMs running on that hardware through something like ESX. That might have changed. Thunderbolt doesn't exist there anyway, but you must realize adoption here could take a long time.